CORE FUNDING MECHANISM (CFM)
1.
Guiding Principles
The hallmarks of the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF)
Core Funding Mechanism (CFM) are:
(a) Impact: Demonstrably strengthen resilience against violent extremist agendas
through addressing the local drivers of radicalisation to violent extremism.
(b) National Support: Encourage and promote national government support based
in existing regional and national countering violent extremism, counterterrorism, and development strategies and goals, as well as the UN Global
Counter-Terrorism Strategy (UNGCTS), and contribute to the implementation of
Pillar I of the UNGCTS.
(c) Efficiency: Maximise donor funding to community-targeted projects.
(d) Reach: Bridge the gap between donor funding at the international and national
level and community-targeted projects at the local level.
(e) Access: Through GCERF’s broad public and private donor base, provide civil
society with much needed access to politically neutral resources.
(f) Multi-Stakeholder Engagement: Facilitate state, private sector, and civil
society collaboration at the country and local levels, in support of funded
projects.
(g) Sustainability: Build the resilience and capacity of supported organisations, as
assets to their communities and countries.
(h) Performance-Based Funding: Provide a robust and practical framework for
performance monitoring and evaluation, appropriate to the scale of funding
involved, the capacities of intended grantees, while managing the risks
associated with innovative approaches.
(i) Innovation: Support creative and entrepreneurial initiatives, acknowledging
the risks involved.
(j) Independence: Provide an efficient, independent, and transparent decisionmaking process for the allocation of funding, based on the technical merit and
feasibility of the proposals and the socio-political concerns of stakeholders.
(k) Transparency: Provide regular, detailed and timely information on the volume,
allocation and when available, results of the use of funding to all stakeholders,
recognising the potential security concerns for grant recipients. Make efficient
use of potential national and local beneficiaries’ resources by providing clear
information concerning the potential funding available.
(l) Agility: Respond promptly and flexibly to emerging opportunities and
challenges in achieving GCERF’s purpose.
(m) Accountability: Provide accountability and integrity.
Page 1 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
(n) Harmonisation: Promote and facilitate coordination and cooperation at the
country and local levels amongst stakeholders, including donors, to avoid
duplication. Complement ongoing national countering violent extremism efforts
and reinforce regional, and international initiatives to count violent extremism,
including those of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task
Force and the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre.
(o) Leverage: Provide a channel for the funding of community-targeted projects within
the broader development context by the same or other donors or funding sources.
2.
Annual Funding Cycle
The Core Funding Mechanism will initially follow an annual cycle, reflecting the funding
model proposed here. During each annual funding cycle, the Board would decide on the
intended beneficiary countries for the following calendar year. Grants may have a term of
up to three years. The Board may wish to review the regularity of the funding cycle in future
years.
3.
Targeted Use of Funding
The Core Funding Mechanism provides targeted and mutually reinforcing support for
applications from Principal Recipients representing a consortium of organisations able to
demonstrate community-level participation and targeting those which incorporate tailored
capacity development for consortia members.
4.
Beneficiary Country Self-Identification and Board Approval
4.1
To be eligible, prospective pilot country must be included on the current list of
countries eligible for Official Development Assistance1 and:
 face a radicalisation to violent extremism challenge;
 have government committed at the national-level to countering violent extremism and
engaging local communities as part of this effort; and
 be willing to support and facilitate the provision of GCERF grant-making nationally.
1
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/49483614.pdf
Page 2 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
Page 3 of 13
Fund Transfers
Audits
Bank
Disbursement
Requests
Contribution
Agreements
Trustee
Donors
Auditor
Reports
CVE & CB Evaluations
↓ Grant Agreement
↕ Performance
Monitoring & Reporting
↕ Financial Management,
Oversight & Accountability
Fund Disbursements
Independent
External
Evaluators
↓ Evaluation Contracts
↑ Evaluations
National Application
→ National Application
← Recommendation
↓ Funding Decision
Secretariat
↑ National Application
& IRP Recommendation
Board
Local
Auditor
↓ Contracts & Fund Disbursement
↓ Capacity Building
↓ Performance Monitoring & Financial Management
Consortia Members
↑ Project Proposal
↑ Reporting
Principal Recipient (s)
(PR)
Consortia Application
Country Support
Mechanism (CSM)
Dialogue
International Independent
Review Panel (IRP)
Figure 1: Grant Management Process
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
4.2
It is envisaged that the Core Funding Mechanism will provide grants in five
countries in 2015 and a further five countries in 2016. To guide interested countries and to
facilitate Board decision-making, a detailed eligibility policy will be prepared for approval at
the next face-to face meeting of the Board.
5.
Country Support Mechanism
5.1
Eligible countries will be invited to form a Country Support Mechanism or “CSM.”
The CSM is a national multi-stakeholder entity ideally composed of representatives of
national government, sub-national authorities, local civil society, the private sector, as well
as bilateral donors, United Nations entities, and multilateral and regional organisations
active in the country.
5.2
In addition to the specific functions in relation to the Core Funding Mechanism
detailed in this document, the CSM is responsible for:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
6.
Ensuring national support and respect for country-led responses to the threat of
radicalisation to violent extremism;
Focusing on the creation, development and expansion of partnerships among all
relevant actors within a country, and across all sectors of society, including
governments, civil society, multilateral and bilateral agencies, and the private
sector;
Strengthening the participation of communities and people at risk of radicalisation
to violence and of people living with insecurity as a result of violent extremism in
addressing the threat of radicalisation to violence;
Building on, complementing, and coordinating with existing national strategies to
counter violent extremism, counter terrorism, and development goals; and
Encouraging transparency and accountability.
CSM Country Needs Assessment
6.1
The CSM is responsible for providing an analysis of existing levels of community
resilience against violent extremist agendas and the drivers of radicalisation to violence,
including the identification of the demography and geography of communities at risk. This
assessment will also include an analysis of: levels of community engagement in identified
communities at risk, community-identified gaps in addressing such drivers, and the
structures and capacities of community-level stakeholders servicing and representing these
communities. Such assessments will build on national strategies to counter violent
extremism, country and local expertise and the body of relevant analysis by academic,
governmental, multilateral, and non-governmental entities.
Page 4 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
6.2
The analysis is based on established assessment criteria agreed upon by GCERF’s
international Independent Review Panel (“IRP”) (discussed in paragraph 12 below), in
consultation with the Secretariat and relevant beneficiary state authorities.
6.3
The CSM is responsible for providing its country needs assessment to the IRP via the
Secretariat in order to inform the IRP’s fund allocation recommendation.
7.
Country Fund Allocation
7.1
The CSM’s needs assessment will be shared with the IRP, facilitated by the
Secretariat. The IRP will use the assessments, as well as information from the Secretariat on
available funding, to provide a recommendation to the Board regarding the maximum
potential funding that may be granted to each intended beneficiary country for a three-year
period.
7.2
The IRP will base its recommendations on the comparative established and
perceived needs of each country under consideration that year, the enabling environment
provided by the national-level government in each country, and the overall secured funding
available for that period.
8.
Grant Application Criteria and Process
8.1
The CSM is responsible for the promotion, through existing institutional channels
and networks, of GCERF’s mission, mandate and calls for proposals. The grant application
process begins with an open call by the CSM for expressions of interest from potential
Principal Recipients.
Page 5 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
8.2
GCERF grant assessment criteria are as follows:
A. PROPOSAL
Soundness of Approach
1. Responds to highest priorities and most critical gaps in countering violent
extremism, reflecting the drivers, demography (including engendered issues), and
geography of radicalisation to violence in a particular country, as identified by the
CSM’s country needs assessment.
2. Demonstrates a focus on identified vulnerable target populations.
3. Demonstrates local community ownership, leadership, and participation in the
proposal.
4. Reflects current, evidence-based technical good practices and approaches that best
fit specific country contexts for countering violent extremism and addressing the
drivers of radicalisation to violence.
5. Shows creativity and initiative in responding to opportunities and challenges posed
by radicalisation to violence in a particular country.
6. Leverages the assets and resources available nationally and internationally to
achieve its intended impact, while at the same time de-conflicting and harmonising
with existing initiatives, to minimise duplication.
7. Delivers a technically sound and strategically focused response in a cost-effective
manner, avoiding replication and any other form of waste.
Feasibility
1. Understands and responds to local political, social, legal, and economic
opportunities and constraints that may enhance or prevent grant implementation.
2. Ensures structural barriers to accessing services, including those related to human
rights, are adequately understood and addressed to achieve the goals.
Capacity Development
1.
Demonstrates how the following capability of consortia members will be
developed in the following areas:
 Act and commit: to plan, take decisions, and act on these decisions collectively
(e.g. appropriate governance, structures, leadership, management, ability to
mobilize resources, programme and financial management).
 Deliver on objectives (e.g. available resources, appropriate human resources,
infrastructure, standards, performance measures).
 Adapt and self-renew through learning and adaptation to changing external
and internal environmental factors.
Page 6 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM


Establish and maintain relations with external stakeholders (e.g. their
communities, government, private sector, and other civil society
organisations).
Achieve coherence in their identity, self-awareness, and discipline (e.g. clear
mandate, mission, values and strategic directions, operationalized through
appropriate principles, systems).
Potential for sustainable outcomes
1. Addresses the drivers of radicalisation to violence in ways that bring about lasting
improvements in the lives of target populations and wider society.
2. Is consistent with broader countering violent extremism and development efforts,
and complements national or international counter-terrorism and development
strategies and goals.
3. Develops the resilience and capacities of supported organisations, as long-term
assets to their communities and countries.
B. APPLICANT
The Principal Recipient in the application demonstrates the capacity to:
1. Engage with and mobilize relevant communities and other stakeholders in the
development of a GCERF application.
2. Provide a robust and practical framework for performance monitoring and
evaluation, appropriate to the scale of funding involved, while managing the risks
associated with innovative approaches.
3. Provide necessary financial accountability and management of the grant funds,
including those managed by its staff and those managed by other consortium
members as required.
4. Identify and support the development of capacity of other consortia members.
5. Facilitate learning, coordination and cooperation amongst key stakeholders.
9.
Principal Recipient
9.1
The role of a Principal Recipient is to act as the lead agency for a consortium of
organisations working at the community-level applying for funding. Specifically, Principal
Recipients must be a locally registered legal entity able to enter into a grant agreement and
receive and manage funding from GCERF, prepare and submit one consolidated proposal
(on behalf of the consortium they represent), and manage approved funding ensuring
integrity up and down the system by complying with GCERF requirements and monitor
compliance of grantees.
Page 7 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
9.2
The Principal Recipient is responsible for the financial accountability and
management of grant funds received by other consortium members. Grant policies will
include limits to administrative overheads, which in all cases will be required to reflect the
actual and documented administrative costs associated with ensuring the financial
accountability and management of grant funds managed by the Principal Recipient,
including those it disburses to other consortia members. However, in cases where the
capacity of consortia members is low with regards to financial management, Principal
Recipients will be encouraged to include a plan and budget for capacity development in
their application. These costs will be reviewed as part of the capacity development
dimension of the grant application.
10.
Open Call and Selection of Principal Recipients
10.1 To avoid unnecessary use of resources by prospective grantees on preparing full
applications and engaging with other potential consortium members, potential Principal
Recipients are selected following an open call for expressions of interest. The selection of
potential Principal Recipients will be a joint decision made by the CSM and IRP in
consultation with the Secretariat based on the “Applicant” grant assessment criteria listed
in paragraph 8.2 above. The CSM, IRP and Secretariat will base the selection on principles of
transparency, exogenous and endogenous accountability, and sound risk management. The
CSM, IRP and Secretariat will seek to reach consensus in the selection of potential Principal
Recipients. In instances in which consensus cannot be reached, the commissioning by the
Secretariat of an independent external ex-ante evaluation may be requested by the IRP or
CSM to guide the final decision.
10.2 Multiple potential Principal Recipients once selected may be invited to submit
applications in a beneficiary country, depending on geographical considerations (e.g. reach),
intended levels of funding to be made available (i.e. demand), and demographics (i.e.
communities served).
10.3 Once selected, the potential Principal Recipient will be informed by the CSM and
given three months to develop their applications.
11.
National Application
11.1 A National Application is comprised of the individual applications of selected
Principal Recipients submitted by the CSM to GCERF for funding. The CSM is responsible for
selecting those applications of selected Principal Recipients it wants to endorse and include
in its National Application. There is no lower or upper limit on the number of selected
Principal Recipient applications to be included in a CSM’s National Application.
11.2 A National Application is submitted via the Secretariat for review and
recommendation by the IRP before submission to the Board.
Page 8 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
12.
International Independent Review Panel (IRP)
The international Independent Review Panel or “IRP” is an independent, impartial group of
8 to 14 experts appointed by the Board to provide a rigorous technical assessment of
requests for funding made to GCERF. The IRP fulfils the functions relation to the Core
Funding Mechanism outlined in this document. Detailed Terms of Reference are attached to
this document.
13.
IRP Funding Recommendations
13.1 The IRP will provide funding recommendations to the Board based on the review
assessment criteria outlined in paragraph 8.2 above. The IRP reviews the national
application against established technical standards and places special emphasis on the
overall coherence and performance potential of the application as a whole.
13.2 The IRP has up to 30 days to make its recommendation with any
reservations/requests for modifications. In the event that modification and/or clarifications
are sought by the IRP, the CSM will be provided with a reasonable amount of time to
address them, including consulting with the Principal Recipient(s) if necessary. The IRP will
then have a further two weeks to accept modifications or clarifications provided by
Principal Recipients through their CSM.
13.3 The IRP’s final recommendation is then submitted to the Board, including any
outstanding reservations/requests for modifications that have not been addressed or
resolved.
14.
Board Decision-Making
14.1 The Board makes funding decisions in accordance with its Statutes, Bylaws, and
Policy on Ethics and Conflict of Interest.
14.2 Board decision-making should place emphasis on the merits and potential impact of
applications, in light of the risk assessment made and reflected in the recommendation (e.g.
contextual considerations), and any outstanding reservations/requests for modifications of
the IRP.
14.3 The Board may choose to approve a National Application, or to do so subject to
specific reservations or conditions. A decision not to fund a proposal will be recorded in the
minutes of the meeting, with an indication of whether the applicant is encouraged to resubmit.
Page 9 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
14.4 Considering the process that each proposal will go through before reaching the
Board, a decision not to fund is an unlikely occurrence; however, it is reserved by the Board
as an option, especially in light of changing circumstances in a country.
Figure 2: Overview of Pilot Grant-making Cycle
- Nov. 14
Secretariat
Supported
Process
Board
Actions
15.
Dec. 14 - Mar. 15
Form the IRP
----------CSM established
----------Country needs
identified
---------IRP Fund Allocation
& Criteria
Recommendations
-----------PR selected
Pilot
Beneficiary
Countries
Approved
Apr. -
Sept. 15
PR proposal(s)
developed &
submitted
-----------National Application
submitted by CSM
-----------IRP Review &
Recommendation
submitted to the
Board
Country
Fund
Allocations
& Criteria
Approved
Oct. 15 Grant Agreement
signed
Funding period
starts (within 3
months of funding
decision)
Funding
Decisions
Grant Awards and Disbursements
15.1 Following Board approval, the Secretariat will negotiate grant agreements with each
Principal Recipient, which will take into account the specific programmatic and financial
risks related to each programme and Principal Recipient.
15.2 Disbursements to Principal Recipients are made on a semi-annual basis, one quarter
in advance. Disbursements by Principal Recipients to other consortia members are made on
a quarterly, semi-annually or annual basis depending on the size of grant.
16.
Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (Programme and Financial)
16.1 The purpose of GCERF’s performance monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) is to
promote exogenous and endogenous accountability and transparency. GCERF will adopt a
robust and pragmatic PM&E framework appropriate to the size of grants made that
recognizes the specific contextual constraints inherent to targeting the community-level. A
detailed PM&E Framework will be developed by the Secretariat in consultation with key
constituencies following the 1st Board meeting, sent to the Board for comments during that
period and presented to the Board for information during the second quarter of 2015.
16.2 The purpose of GCERF’s PM&E framework will be to (i) support the robust
programmatic and financial management of grant performance; (ii) promote learning and
Page 10 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
the identification of good practices; and (iii) inform improvements in current grant
implementation and future grant-making. GCERF’s PM&E framework will comprise periodic
monitoring and episodic evaluation.
Progress Monitoring
16.3 The purpose of GCERF’s progress monitoring is to (i) improve the efficiency and
inform adjustments in grant implementation by Principal Recipients; and (ii) oversee direct
expenditure and disbursements to other consortium members by Principal Recipients.
GCERF’s monitoring specifically refers to the level of activities and outputs based on predefined progress indicators.
16.4 The Secretariat will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of grant
awards by Principal Recipients based on agreed financial reporting requirements and predefined progress indicators. The Secretariat will maintain close and regular communication
with Principal Recipients.
16.5 GCERF will track grant progress regularly through the routine review of progress
reports. Principal Recipients will be required to provide quarterly programmatic and
financial reports on grant implementation. These reports will include a management section
identifying progress trends during the period, significant deviations or concerns, and
recommended midstream corrections. Progress reports will be designed to ensure
unreasonable or undue burden is not placed on Principal Recipients or smaller consortia
members.
16.6 Principal Recipients will be responsible for the routine oversight of consortia
members, based on agreed financial reporting and pre-defined progress indicators. These
requirements will be informed by standard guidelines provided by the Secretariat that take
into account the size and duration of funding provided to consortia members. Due to the
potential capacity limitations of smaller consortia members, a Principal Recipient may
facilitate and support the preparation by smaller consortia members’ of narrative and
financial progress reports, subject to clear guidelines concerning transparency.
16.7 Enhanced oversights of Principal Recipients’ progress by the Secretariat will be
provided through annual quality assurance assessments of each Principal Recipient
primarily for verification purposes.
Performance Evaluation
16.8 The purpose of GCERF’s performance evaluations are to (i) improve the
effectiveness and inform adjustments in grant implementation by Principal Recipients; and
(ii) oversee the financial management and cost-effectiveness of Principal Recipients.
GCERF’s performance evaluations specifically refer to the level of outcomes based on
performance indicators and qualitative impact assessment.
Page 11 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
16.9 GCERF will undertake annual performance evaluations of each Principal Recipient.
These limited scope assessments will: (i) evaluate the aggregate performance outcomes and
when possible impact achieved by the Principal Recipients against the approved goals and
objectives of their grant award; and (ii) identify potential areas of underperformance and
inform recommendations for midstream corrections; (iii) verify reported implementation
and expenditure; and (iv) ensure compliance with financial management requirements.
16.10 The Secretariat will reserve the right to undertake a random performance
evaluation of a Principal Recipient at any time of the year with due notice.
National Award Evaluation
16.11 The Secretariat will commission independent external evaluations of each CSM’s
portfolio during the final year of their current grant period. These assessments will evaluate
the aggregate performance outcomes and impact achieved by each Principal Recipient
against the approved goals and objectives of the overall approved national grant award. The
intention of these evaluations will be to: (i) assess the overall performance of GCERF’s grant
award for key stakeholders (e.g. donors, beneficiary countries); and (ii) to inform future
GCERF funding based on the needs of the country.
16.12 National award evaluations will be informed by the reports of previously conducted
performance evaluations.
16.13 Especially in this pilot phase, GCERF may decide to commission one or a number of
mid-term national award evaluations to inform future GCERF funding.
16.14 GCERF will reserve the right to suspend funding in a particular country, or to a
particular Principal Recipient, in light of a spectrum of internal and/or external issues.
General conditions concerning the grounds for the suspension of funding will be detailed in
specific conditions in individual Grant Agreements.
17.
Financial Audits
17.1 Principal Recipients will be required to appoint auditors in an open, competitive and
transparent process. Principal Recipients will be required to share with GCERF their annual
audited reports and, in appropriate circumstances, to provide a grant specific audited
statement.
17.2 In some cases, the Secretariat may initiate external financial reviews of a Principal
Recipient to promote robust financial management practices and performance. These
reviews may include probes into individual disbursements for the compliance of other
consortia members.
Page 12 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM
17.3 The Board will appoint an independent auditor to conduct an audit of the GCERF’s
books and records on an annual basis. The annual audited financial statements of the GCERF
will be shared with the Board.
18.
Fund Disbursements
18.1 GCERF will issue fund disbursement requests to its bank for payment to Principal
Recipients.
18.2 Principal Recipients will be responsible for fund disbursements to other consortia
members.
Page 13 of 13
CORE FUNDING MECHANISM